Board of Appeals OKs buffer reduction for Cottage Apartments in Mechanicsville

The St. Mary's County Board of Appeals on June 12 approved a variance (VAAP 24-0345) allowing a reduction of the required 65-foot Type B buffer to a 30-foot Type C buffer on the west side of the Cottage Apartments property, adjacent to Parcel 178 Lot 1, permitting construction of a six-unit multifamily building on a roughly 1.6-acre site in Mechanicsville.

The variance was approved after the applicant, represented by Wayne Hunt, a professional land surveyor, described physical constraints on the parcel — an ingress/egress easement and lack of nearby public sewer — that he said left insufficient developable area under strict application of the county ordinance. Chairman George Allen Hayden Sr. said the proposed development “is a much improvement to that area than what's there now,” and the board voted unanimously to approve the request.

Why it matters: the buffer requirement is intended to separate higher-intensity uses from adjacent residential lots. Reducing the buffer changes where plantings and fencing will be placed and shifts long‑term maintenance responsibility to the property owner; the board discussed fence placement and enforcement language to ensure the buffer is maintained and accessible for upkeep.

What the application proposed: the property owner is listed in staff materials as Mid Bridal LLC; Wayne Hunt presented on the company's behalf. The plan calls for a six-unit dwelling (use type 16) on the parcel at 28055 Notch Road. Hunt told the board the parcel contains about 1.63 acres (staff materials also listed 1.5 acres) and that an existing ingress/egress easement running to Maryland Route 5 removes roughly half an acre of usable land. Because the site lies in Sewer Service Area S60 with no nearby public sewer, Hunt said a septic area of roughly one-quarter acre is required. He said the required 65-foot Type B buffer would consume about 0.38 acres and that moving to a 30-foot Type C buffer “will gain back 0.22 acres, giving the developer 0.7 acres for development.”

Planting and fence: the applicant proposed a Type C buffer to include seven canopy trees, 10 understory trees, 40 shrubs and 21 evergreens, plus a stockade-style fence. Hunt told the board the fence would be a standard six feet tall. Board members asked whether the fence should be located on the property-line side or the higher-intensity side of the buffer; staff and the applicant pointed to the site plan showing the fence on the side closest to the multifamily building while noting county guidance that the fence generally is placed on the side facing the higher‑intensity use to protect plantings and facilitate maintenance.

Maintenance and enforcement: staff cited the county zoning ordinance maintenance provision that places responsibility for buffer maintenance on the developer or successor owner. Board members discussed adding a condition to clarify perpetual maintenance responsibility; staff said the comprehensive zoning ordinance already requires ongoing maintenance and that neighbors may report failures to land-use case management.

Sewer history and capacity: Hunt noted a Metropolitan Commission (Metcom) sewer waiver dated March 14, 2016, in the file; board members questioned whether that waiver remains applicable given the time elapsed and asked staff to confirm related approvals as part of permit review. Hunt said, if pushed, a higher unit count (eight to 10 units) might be physically possible but would depend on unit sizes and septic capacity; the application as presented proposed six units.

Board action and next steps: a board member moved to approve the variance “having made a finding that the standards for granting a variance and the objectives of 24.3 of the St. Mary's County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance have been met,” describing the relief as a reduction from a 65-foot Type B buffer to a 30-foot Type C buffer on the west side adjacent to Parcel 178 Lot 1. The motion carried unanimously (vote recorded 5–0). Staff will prepare a written order reflecting the board's decision; the order will be signed by the board within 60 days, and a 30-day appeal period to the circuit court follows the date the order is signed.

The board held no verbal or written public comments on the case at the hearing. The applicant's approved concept site plan and the site-level buffer depiction will guide permit review and any required conditions tied to fencing, plantings and maintenance.